This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

The article says that she "changed the American perception of women in politics," but never quite gets around to how anything changed. Could someone who knows please fix this oversight? [18:17, November 27, 2005 69.4.130.246]

She didn't change anything in regards to women being in politics. Women have been heads of state, senators, and what have you before 1984. She wasn't even the first vice presidential candidate nor she was she as often incorrectly reported in the press as being the first woman to receive an electoral vote. Tonie Nathan, the Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate in 1972 was. Yet, which party gets labeled as progressive? The Democrats. Now you know why I don't trust corporate media. They almost always get things wrong. [13:34, November 25, 2006 24.158.186.193]

Yes, women had been progressing greatly for women in other nations, but in the U.S. - not so stellar. There were only a handful of female senators and there were no women in senior cabinet positions - there wouldn't be until Clinton appointees JJanet Reno and Madeline Albright took office. There had only been 2 serious women to go after a manjor party nom. - Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R) and Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D). For the first time in history there was gender balance on the ticket - on a real ticket, a major party ticket, a ticket with 50/50 potential to win! Tonie Nathan? It's good she did what she did but everyone knew she was gonna lose. Ms. Ferraro changes the American perception of women in politics. It was huge, a woman being elected to be one life away from becoming the most powerful person on the face of the earth! She proved that women could be taken seriously as VP candidates and be strong minded politicians. She changed the American perception of women in politics because she eased the thoughts of sexists when it came for women for Vice President - or even for President. And she is still on of the most popular women in American history changing the nation by proving the power of women in a time when the only supreme power in any woman was Sandy O'Connor on the Supreme Court. [12:47, July 4, 2007 72.90.47.102]

Good argument. Provide a citation that says as much. Remember (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but women Senators? Very few, even fewer elected in their own right - never more than 2 at a time serving back then. Cabinet members? Well, even though we started in 1933 with Frances Perkins, before Carter there were only ever 3 - 3! - women in the cabinet. As of then a woman was never a top cabinet officer. Before Sandra D.O'C. got on the Court, highest office held by a woman was Treasurer of the United States. After Mondale-Ferraro, women awoke to the possibility of women in power and they were appointed to top White House Staff, Cabinet, Congressional, and Supreme Court positions in record numbers. But Gerry was before Year of the Woman. It was huge to give a woman a 50% chance of being Second-in-Command in the world's most powerfull nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.82.126 (talk • contribs) 22:29:32, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

The article uses "dogma" in its technical sense, not as a pejorative, so I think this is fairly an NPOV statement. The Catholic Church itself describes some of its basic beliefs as dogma, so I support the article's use of that term. I agree this is an arguable point, however, and if the consensus is to change the language back, I won't object. Gwernol 16:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

We'll be lucky to have any pictures. The current Wikimedia Commons image used in the Infobox template, GeraldineFerraro.jpg, has been tagged for deletion by a lazy individual who apparently didn't bother reading the corresponding discussion page. If the image gets deleted, I'd suggest taking a look at http://womenincongress.house.gov/member-profiles/profile.html?intID=76 for a near-identical replacement. In fact, this image appears to have been taken in the same place, on the same day, and has better lighting and more detail. —QuicksilverT@ 20:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That one is captioned "Image Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration", which presumably applies to the current one too. But the current image is locked down in Commons so that only admins can touch it, so there's nothing for us mortals to do here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The following statement She has vowed to help protect Clinton from Republican attacks, such as the Swiftboat campaign that destroyed nominee Senator John Kerry in the close-cut 2004 presidential election. is flawed, and POV from the Liberal/Democratic perspective. The 'Swiftboat campaign" did not destroy Kerry's campaign. From the Conservative perspective, it is my belief that Kerry was his own worst enemy for flip-flopping on issue after issue, including war funding and taking different positions on Iraq depending on the political wind at the time. This statement should be clarified by someone, indicating that Ferraro has vowed to protect Clinton from political campaigns such as the Swiftboat campaign, which Democrats and Liberals cite as a contributing factor to John Kerry's defeat in 2004. As always, it would be good to see sources cited showing different perspectives on the so-called 'Swiftboat Campaign", rather than just blatantly accusing it alone of destroying Kerry's campaign. I recommend and edit by a politically neutral editor. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.41.34.50 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The entry has been changed (not by myself) and uses the verb Swiftboated, which appears to be a fair word to use in this context as it reads that Ferraro has vowed to protect Clinton from unfounded smear campaigns and is not used in the context being presented as the sole reason for Kerry's loss. Jleske (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not keep editing the sentence that states that the Clinton campaign disagrees with Ferraro's statements. Thats what's printed in the source I cited and thats what's most accurate. To say that they are distancing themselves is not supported by the source or the facts as they happen. Clinton has recently addressed the issue by specifically not denouncing or even directly mentioning Ferraro's statements. Until she or the campaign does do so, "disagree" is the correct description of their stance.Cubguy83 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said she was racist! When Barack Obama was asked if it was racist he said no! He said she is not a racist person, too! She accused her self of being racist! All Barack Obama said was she was being divisive, that she was trying to divide the country and none of his campaign said it was racist..... the way Obama responds he is gentle... I find it completely sad that America still has not gotten over racism... that they are too scared of someone who is half white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.23.159 (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that "Controversial" is exact enough for this section. What she said were "Racially Charged" remarks, whether you agree with them or not. When asked about her comments she only defended them by stating they were true, not addressing the racial overtones of the comments. Therefore I believe that "'Racially Charged" is NPOV, since the comments have racial overtones and they have only been defended because they are "true". Please - let's get a healthy debate about this going, but I do not think it's an open and shut decision.Cubguy83 (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "racially charged" expression could suggest to some readers that she might be racist. It's probably better to simply write "comments". Wedineinheck (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, must we have a dozen paragraphs on her Clinton campaigning/Obama comment - almost as much as on her VP run? Obviously the reason for the exhaustive coverage is that it just happened, leading to a couple hundred edits since then, but really, it's probably not that important overall in her life; it's not what she'll be remembered for. So I suggest cutting down the affair to one, maybe two paragraphs rather than clogging her biography with this. Biruitorul (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I used "inflamatory" to describe the comments, because they indeed were inflamatory to some. I believe that her comments were perfectly reasonable and factual, but the reality is that they were inflamatory to some. BTW, why is it that the pundits can thoroughly explore how Barack Obama can't attack Hillary to hard because she's a FEMALE candidate and many other female oriented narratives, but the instant someone comments on the pink elephant in the room-- that 1/3 of Democratic primary voters (Blacks) are overwhealmingly supporting Obama because of race and that is the difference in this campaign, they are racist. Absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Ivans (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the reason for her resignation from the Clinton campaign in the opening paragraphs. I feel that if it is worthwhile to mention her resignation there, it's worthwhile to mention why. I tried to word it as neutrally as possible while still explaining the truth of the situation. If someone wants to reword it, go ahead.Countmippipopolous (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Clinton did not ask for Ferraro's resignation. This is explicitly implied by the sentence "Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said Ferraro left the post on her own initiative", which is part of the source i used to cite this. Meaning, she was not asked to leave which would be the alternative to her leaving on her own volition.Cubguy83 (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"racist" is the correct word to describe the remark. The source I provided makes a perfectly sensible argument.[1] If saying someone is successful only because of the color of their skin isn't racist, I'll eat my hat. -- Kendrick7talk 22:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above post. If it had been barack obama who had suggested that the only reason the long nosed bitch (ferraro) got selected as a VP was becuz she has a vagina, he would have been condemned as a sexist pig. Why the double standard to Ferraro? her comments were indeed racist. Barack Obama won more votes than Hillary clinton, and that's why he has more than a 100 delegate lead over her, not becuz of his race. Someone needs to remind miss ferraro, that the nominee of the party is selected via the People's vote, not by the whim of a politician (walter mondale) looking to add more votes by selecting a woman regardless of whether she can lead or not. The people spoke and she got trampeled over in the election by the superior nominee, miss ferraro can go play in traffic or something.

I've added a comment that Ferraro has been labelled as racist for her remarks and cited the source for this comment. It's fair to draw attention that her views are seen as being racist. Jleske (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, must we have a dozen paragraphs on her Clinton campaigning/Obama comment - almost as much as on her VP run? Obviously the reason for the exhaustive coverage is that it just happened, leading to a couple hundred edits since then, but really, it's probably not that important overall in her life; it's not what she'll be remembered for. So I suggest cutting down the affair to one, maybe two paragraphs rather than clogging her biography with this.

Please see WP:UNDUE - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Now, we're not sure quite how much weight this episode will have on Ferraro's life story, first of all because it just happened and second because she's still living. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect the matter will be dead and buried in a few days. Given that, it's absurd to fill her biography with every twist and turn of the past week. What I kept is more than enough to give readers an idea of the subject. This is an encyclopedic biography, not a news blog, and our job is to paint a stable picture of the subject's life, not dwell endlessly on a couple of interviews she gave. Biruitorul (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says she lost two "extremely close" senate primaries, when in fact the second race she lost 50-26% -- not close at all -- so the "extremely close" language is damaging the credibility of the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.39 (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a tag, because I noticed some material in the article that appears to be slanted against Ferraro. Enigmamsg! 07:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There is a decidedly negative tinge here. I think we can mention the incident without hurting her name. Recall that Obama gave her the benefit of the doubt. Antelantalk 05:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted Barack Obama made virtually the same comment about the advantage of his race in 2005 as Geraldine Ferraro made[edit]

So why the outrage? Political expediency?

QUOTE "Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.

If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?" END QUOTE

I have tried to change this 3 or 4 times and it keeps getting deleted.

1) There is ref to Keith Olbermann of MSNBC count down and a "Special Comment" (a personal tirade) about how awful her comments are. Normally Olbermann uses his "special comments" as a personal editorial and criticism of Bush Admin. For the FIRST TIME he used the "Special comment" on Ferraro and the Clinton campaign, Democrats. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. It is bias opinion. Per Olbermann's Wiki page he is a top liberal. Clearly by his coverage (I watch his show) of Clinton v Obama he is biased for Obama. When Obama had his Rev Wright and "Bitter" issue, Olbermann had the tone how can he fix this, will it hurt him. When Geraldine Ferraro says Obama is luck to be a black man, she and Clinton get a "Special Comment" (attack). Make no mistake Special means a vitriolic rant condemning something. That is FINE and very entertaining but does not deserve Wiki status. Clearly reference to Keith Olbermann of MSNBC "Special Comment" and his vitriolic point of view about her comments is bias. Who cares what Olbermann says. His "special comments" are personal

2) The Ref to the Daily Breeze where she made her original or later comments are NO LONGER WORKING.

3) Some so called quotes are NOT found in the reference. "Ferraro remained defiant?" That is a commentary not found in reference.

4) The quotes take two of the worst sentences out of context.

5) No ref give her defense, explanation or comments back to the Obama campaign that calls her a racist.

6) Obama's "race speech" defending Rev Wright took an attack, comparing Ferraro to Rev wright, saying she had "Deep seeded racial bias"??? Ferraro defends her self against this as she should. Does anyone think she is a racist or a "typical white person"? SHE IS BEING ATTACKED, and all the attacks are in the Wiki article but no other side. Not neutral at all.

7) Should there be any defense of her words? Bob Johnson, founder of BET defends her words. Very simple if Barack Obama was Bob Olson, a white Jr. Senator from Illinois, he would not have create the buzz he got to launch a Presidential Campaign or command the 90% of black votes he now has. This is not to say he is not smart or running a good campaign.

8) How about Randi Rhodes of Air America, fired for attacking Ferraro and Hillary clinton with a profanity tirade. I think the NON neutral aspect of media attacking Clinton and not Obama is relevant. If it is not relevant, than Olbermann's comments should be removed.

9) I added some references to Ferraro's comments, where she defends herself. She made comments that Obama camp has called the race card too many times. They are her own words. She addresses the Obama camps and other medias condemnation of her. The Wiki article is tailored to just make her look bad with not one bit of context. Ferraro and Clinton are liberal and have been fighting for black causes and minorities for decades and decades. To paint his as controversial in a "racist way" is not neutral and feeds the beast. My personal opinion Obama has enjoyed "racial armor" or protection. Any criticism seems to be met with crys of racism or "there goes Clinton doing what ever it takes with unfair attacks".

10) Why is this controversial? WHY because Obama's camp and his supporters are spring loaded to yell and shout down any one criticizing Obama. And all the excuse they need is any mention of race. Hillary said LBJ helped pass Civil Rights. Bill Clinton said Jessie Jackson won south carolina with a majority of black votes; Bob Johnson says Hillary was working for black causes when Obama was selling drugs......... all these caused "controversy" but all are true. Well they are as true as small town people being bitter so they cling to religion, guns and bigotry towards immigration and foreigners. It is way more ture than HIV is a US Gov plot to kill blacks.

What is obvious is its ok to attack a white woman with the most harsh language but a black man must not be criticised no matter what they say or do. To do so would be racist.

I would just like to give reference to ALL her words, not where she says she is being attacked for being white or Obama is lucky. I AM NOT A Clinton supporter or Ferraro supporter or against Obama. I just think this off handed comment which in some ways is true, Obama's mix race is out there and does affect his candidacy, is shown to make Ferraro sound like a raving racist. Again the Olbermann comments are totally OUT OF LINE. As Obama would say WORDS DO MATTER. If the media can explain and excuse his BITTER comment or Rev Wrights than we should have both sides of the story here.

Note Obama's Wiki page almost sanitized. Than look at Hillary Clinton's, with mention of her laugh and getting choked up on the campaign trail? Why? Why do things like laugh matter. Why does Obama's page not mention his speech style but when talks extemporaneously he studders and stammers? Why no controversial comments for OBAMA? I am starting to see politcal bias is rampant on Wiki. Gmcjetpilot (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Tvoz's edit because it changed factual information that I had sourced. The statement in question was that Hillary had not asked for Ferraro to step down. This is a noteworthy fact, and it is mentioned in the AP story provided at the end of the sentence. In the AP story it says that Wolfson said that Ferraro had resigned of her own accord. No one had put any pressure on her to do so. Read it, its right there in plain english. So if you want to change this please state a reason here for the change, because it is properly sourced and an important distinction.Cubguy83 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see in this edit where it is claimed that Hillary asked Ferraro to step down; it explicitly says Ferraro didn't want her comments used against Hillary's campaign. I haven't reverted this edit but it is suspect to me. (If a revert happens, I'd rather see "heated criticism" changed to "criticism" myself, because we don't need to judge - just inform.) Frank | talk 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, my edit did a lot more than remove that synthesis. Cubguy, you are making a logical extension from what Howard Wolfson is cited as saying to saying that Hillary did not call for her resignation. This is likely accurate, but it is not supported by the citation, and on Wikipedia we do not go with things that are logical extensions of sources - it's not truth, it's verifiability that counts here. SO, I did not at all suggest that Hillary asked Ferraro to step down, as Frank correctly notes. What I did was stick to the source, and I also made other needed changes in that section which was out of order chronologically and poorly worded, so just reverting my overall edit is not at all the appropriate move to make, even if you disagreed with my removal of the OR extrapolation that Hillary hadn't asked for the resignation. I do not object in principle to saying that Wolfson said Ferraro left on her own accord, as per the source, and if you have another source that explicitly says that Hillary did not call for her resignation, that could possibly be included, but the way you had it is not supported. However, mindful of WP:WEIGHT, I do not think the Wolfson comment is necessary to include here, as the section as I edited it was quite clear that Ferraro decided on her own to separate herself from the campaign so as to not harm the campaign. Therefore, I am reverting to my edit, because there are other things in the original that were problems. I also have removed "heated" as per Frank's comment above which was correct. Tvoz |talk 21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you are technically correct, I will not revert the edit again. Instead, I am changing it to "clinton campaign" since wolfson is her official spokesman. As ferraro would say, "How's that?" hehe i couldnt help myself.Cubguy83 (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a major reorganization and overhaul of this article but it is still not in good shape. It needs much more development - now it is very sketchy. I removed the long quotes which do not belong here and tried to get at the POV, hyperbole, and unencyclopedic wording that riddled the article. Added the books section, and found some more refs. Some of the information needs verification, like whether she is currently a Fox News commentator or New York Times contributor. Her career in the DA office is woefully short - she set up the SVU and then what? Likewise her days in the House. And more details would be good about the VP campaign as it specifically relates to her. And so on. Tvoz |talk 06:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The recentism here is bad – almost as much on her 2008 cameo as on her 1984 veep campaign! And now the article will get new attention, due to the Sarah Palin announcement. I'll try to put some attention on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've now done a ton of expansion – the article has gone from about 1800 words to 4300. I've focussed on her early years up through her final race in 1998. Although I'm sure I've left out a few notable things during that time. Haven't reviewed the post-1998 sections. I'm sure the prose is lousy in what I've added, I was mostly focussed on getting material in to fill the large gaps in what was there. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferraro was elected to the House of Representatives from New York's 9th Congressional District in Queens in 1978 and served three two-year terms, compiling a generally liberal voting record on social and economic issues.

This is not, as far as I can tell, particularly true. Everything I've read about her service in the House says that she was the most conservative Democratic house member from New York, and her signature issue was opposition to busing. Oughtn't this be corrected? john k (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that statement. I've added in her conservative background (Archie Bunker district), her gradual evolution towards more moderate views while in the House, and I've given her ADA/ACU ratings (78/8), which are an at least somewhat objective metric. I don't know how she compared to other New York (city? state?) representatives at the time. I also don't think opposition to busing was her signature issue; that would be wages/retirement/annuity equity for women. Even her first election was mostly about crime, from what I could find. I did add that she favored an anti-busing constitutional amendment (!?), but I didn't see that issue popping up that much elsewhere, although I know it did come up in her debate with GHWB. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to check their facts a little better, according to the Guide to Women Vice-Presidential Candidates 1880-2000 there are over 50+ women who have ran as VP running mates in the United States alone. From 1972 to 1999 there were 34 female VP candidates. While Palin might be the second since Ferraro to be on a 'major' party ticket, it's a great disservice to women and history to not have this noted both here and possibly in a separate, stub article. Alex (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Our fact is quite correct: Ferraro "was the first female Vice Presidential candidate representing a major American political party.[1]" In America, there is a huge, huge difference between the major parties and all the minor third parties. The third parties have no chance of even coming close to winning, so they can and do nominate practically anyone. It's been much, much harder for women to climb to the highest level of U.S. major party national tickets. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Check again, please, and cross check to see what party was the major party in power at the time. Also, this isn't the place to discuss the chances of a third party winning. If so, the only party that has come the closest to competing would be the Libertarian Party, who in 1972, had a female VP candidate, over a decade before Ferraro. As an excerpt:

1972 Theodora (Tonie) Nathan, United States of America For the Libertarian in 1972. In January she became the first woman in US History to receive an electoral vote in the Electoral College, and also making her the first Jewish person to receive an electoral vote and to gain a nomination to run as Vice-President.

There were two other nominees that year. Also:

1924 Nominated for Vice-President of the Democratic ticket Lena Jones Sporing, United States of America She recieved 38 votes.

The Democratic party has been a major party since pre-Civil War. Check your facts, please.Alex (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Our statement is that Ferraro was the first female belonging to a major party who was the nominee of that party for vice president. In other words, two conditions have to be true: belongs to a major party, becomes the nominee. The Libertarian Party got only a tiny piece of the popular vote in 1972, less than 4,000 nationwide; the one electoral vote they got is because of a faithless elector. So Theodora Nathan was a nominee but clearly not of a major party. Lena Springs (not Sporing) received a few delegate votes at the Democratic National Convention in 1924. So she was of a major party, but clearly not the nominee. Wikipedia does not ignore these other women; there is a whole list on them, List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates, and many of them have individual articles. But the simple and obvious and significant truth remains that Ferraro was the first major party nominee. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the key here is in the definition of "major" as applied to political parties. What do you consider a "major party"? A couple of alternatives might involve "received electoral college votes for the Presidency or Vice Presidency" and "actually had a candidate elected to the Presidency or Vice Presidency". Of course, that ignores any criteria involving the House or Senate, to say nothing of State politics. I suppose, if you specify a United States national party, it would make sense to limit it to parties whose members have held national offices or otherwise been very influential in national politics. I'm inclined to give the Libertarian Party the benefit of the doubt, however, with candidates having received electoral college votes, the third place total number of votes garnered for candidates of a single party in several recent House of Representatives election cycles, and the party regularly getting ballot access in around 90% of States. It's worth noting that the Democrats and Republicans wouldn't even have been on 100% of State ballots in 2008 if not for Texas fudging the rules to let them gain ballot access after the deadline. - Apotheon (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Major party: a political party having electoral strength sufficient to permit it to win control of a government usually with comparative regularity and when defeated to constitute the principal opposition to the party in power. [Merriam-Webster Dictionary online]

The Libertarian Party falls far, far short of meeting this definition. It's never come close to winning control of any government above perhaps a small town or school board level, much less a state, much less the national government, which is what we're discussing here. Its presidential candidates get less than 1% of the popular vote. Its one electoral college vote was not earned at the ballot box but gained via a faithless elector. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the IP is correct. A number of women have run on the national ticket. Ferraro, Palin, Hillary Clinton, Winona LaDuke (was Nader's running mate), etc. - Burpelson AFB✈ 09:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess if you only consider Democrats and Republicans than it's actually three, but Hillary Clinton was on the presidential ticket through the primaries. - Burpelson AFB✈ 09:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Presidential ticket" means a party's presidential and vice presidential nominees, not candidates in the primaries, so it does not include Hillary. "Major party" means the Democrats and Republicans now, and a few others in the distant past (Whigs, Democrat-Republicans, Federalists); it does not include Nader, the Libertarians, and many others. Female members of presidential tickets of major parties number two: Ferraro and Palin. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has deviated much from the reason why I rejected the edit request. In the United States, as was the location implied by the IP, "our current vice-president" is Joe Biden. Contrary to the IP's allegation, Mr. Biden possesses a Y-chromosome, and is thus not of the female type. The request was most definitely illogical and most likely added to cause disruption or to register dissatisfaction with Biden. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does the article make a point of mentioning that her family owned vacation homes on Fire Island and St. Croix? This seems like spectacularly irrelevant (and possibly erroneous) information, even if there are cites for it. Would anyone object if that info was deleted? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not unusual for detailed articles on politicians and other prominent people to discuss, among other things, the number and locations of their homes; see Mitt Romney, for example. More to the point, the properties became an issue in the 1984 campaign, as the article discusses. (PS - I find it alarming that you would claim that text is "possibly erroneous" without bothering to check the cites. Read WP:IDONTLIKEIT.) Ylee (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Romney is a multimillionaire who is famous for not being very firmly rooted in any one place; Ferraro wasn't a multimillionaire and she lived her whole life in New York City. Are you saying that we have to include seemingly irrelevant data about Ferraro in her article because Mitt Romney's lavish lifestyle came up in his article? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, read the darn article! Ferraro wasn't nearly as wealthy as Romney is, no, but she and her husband were indeed millionaires and quite comfortable in their lifestyles by almost any standard. I wouldn't say that Romney is "famous for not being very firmly rooted", either; he grew up in Michigan and has lived in Massachusetts for 40 years, barring three years spent running the Salt Lake Olympics (which is more or less the equivalent of an ambassador going abroad, or a politician elected to Congress and going to Washington). Ylee (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ylee, the information is accurate and relevant given her life in politics and the 1984 campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't be added the controversy that surrounded her Catholic funeral? I am not being cynical but according to the Catholic Church doctrine, Catholics who die under mortal sin, which includes support for legal abortion without restrictions like she did, can be denied sacraments and this includes a Catholic funeral. Anyway I really don't think her "Catholicism" was ever taken that seriously. Most evidence points that she simply used the label of "Catholic" for matters of political correctness.85.243.71.102 (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in the newspapers to support such a pusillanimous line of inquiry. Ferraro renewed her marriage vows one year before she died, and her funeral was held in the same church as the renewal of vows: the Church of St. Vincent Ferrer (New York). It was a private ceremony closed to the press, but Walter Mondale delivered one of the nine eulogies. Ferraro's Catholicism was profoundly personal and quite in line with Vatican II attitudes which were part of her upbringing. By the 1980s her attitude was at odds with the Church hierarchy who had abandoned Vatican II liberalism. Ferraro retained the earlier liberalism, but any who say she was not Catholic will be proved wrong by her actions. She stuck her neck out to help the Catholic Church advance with the times but the reactionary Church decided to reverse that direction. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If there was controversy, you should be able to cite the existence of such controversy with reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't care if you personally thought she shouldn't have been given a Catholic funeral. If "most evidence" says that she identified as Catholic for political reasons, you should be able to provide at least some evidence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

For this kind of comment to be useful, you have to give some specific examples of places in the article that you think are lacking in objectivity, or of aspects of her life that you think should be in the article but are not. And somehow I doubt that a Ferraro press release would spend as much time as this article does on the problems of her vice presidential campaign, or on how she managed to lose two senate primary campaigns where she started out the front runner, or on the mess she made with her comments in the 2008 presidential campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't all that far from NPOV but there needs to be more summarizing in the main body of the article. The lede should mention her personal style and how it was percieved.Overagainst (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ferraro was actively pro-choice, helping to organize those who might agree with her position. A bit more of her activity is described at the article A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion, which says Ferraro wrote the introduction to a position paper on the issue. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Overagainst, some of your changes to the lead are okay, but others are not. Per WP:LEAD, it has to summarize facts that are stated and sourced in the article body. It cannot introduce new facts that are unsourced anywhere, which is what some of your changes did, including "sexual abuse of children" (sex crimes and child abuse are two different areas that unit focused on, although sometimes they may have overlapped), "lacked the connections of the older male dominated party" (unstated and unsourced, and for what it's worth it was her male cousin connection that got her the Queens ADA job in the first place, which was her springboard into politics), "assertive personal style" (maybe so, but not stated or sourced anywhere in the article), "positive polling that briefly gave Mondale the lead" (the article and its source says briefly even), and "was quickly targeted" (this makes it seem like she was singled out for special attacks on her background, when every other little-known national candidate has been too (think Eagleton and Quayle, for example). I've removed these additions that went past what the article states. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You obviously know a lot, yes I thought of Quayle later, he never gave anyone a boost though, and he was seen as a bit of a fool. Still the article does seem to be saying, as she herself made clear in an interview when Ms Clinton suffered reverses, that she (GF) thought had been targeted as others had not partly because she was a woman and there was an idea of what women should think of certain issues. Mondale promised to raise taxes at the convention and she did give the ticket a very big boost. And the NYT obit made clear she had a very assertive style, and a strong stand on abortion, while "questions about the Ferraro family finances — often carrying insinuations about ties to organized crime — that not only blemished Ms. Ferraro’s stature as the first Italian-American national candidate but also diverted attention from other issues". Bought up by a single parent from 8 too. Overagainst (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Per what you've said here and on your talk page, I have added to the article some descriptions of her personality, including 'feisty'. (Actually, I thought I already had something like that in the article, but it was only for her Crossfire persona, which is insufficient.) I didn't include the actual word 'assertive', because I think that's kind of redundant - nobody gets anywhere in politics unless they are assertive. I haven't found a source that says her personality was muted in the veep debate, however. Candidates usually dial it down somewhat during big debates (except for Joe Biden, who last time around amped it up), and she did do things like push back at GHWB about his "patronizing attitude that you have to teach me about foreign policy." As for being targeted, yes she did get extra examination due to being a woman; as the article says, "She faced a threshold of proving competence that other high-level female political figures have had to face, especially those who might become commander-in-chief; the question "Are you tough enough?" was often directed to her.[65]" And also "This was also the first time the American media had to deal with a national candidate's husband.[66]" But any kind of financial improprieties or secretiveness has always resulted in candidates being focused on by the press; the same kind of reluctance to release tax returns tripped up Mitt Romney a couple of years ago. So I don't think that's worth stating in the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have just added archive links to one external link on Geraldine Ferraro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}}(last update: 1 May 2018).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

I was doing a report on Gerry for school and I really had a hard time understanding and summerizing all the words in this article since i'm only in 7th grade. Could you make a kids version for articles from now on so it's easier for us to understand. All kids would appreciate this tool. ( For all articles )

Last edited at 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 16:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have just modified 6 external links on Geraldine Ferraro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}}(last update: 1 May 2018).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

I have just modified 6 external links on Geraldine Ferraro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}}(last update: 1 May 2018).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

I have just modified one external link on Geraldine Ferraro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}}(last update: 1 May 2018).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

I have just modified 2 external links on Geraldine Ferraro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}}(last update: 1 May 2018).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

I have just modified one external link on Geraldine Ferraro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}}(last update: 1 May 2018).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.